ISIS...Islamic State Victims



It begs the question of how come in three years of USA bombing, that these sitting duck facilities remained untouched?
Could it be that America turned a blind eye to the ISIS production and refining of stolen Syrian oil, and exported/transported to Turkey by a company owned by Erdogan's son?

Anyway, thanks to Russia, Turkish oiltanker drivers are fast becoming an extinct species in the past couple of days. :)
 
How dare you pour cold water on the great diplomatic coup of getting the Turks to allow the American's to use Incirlik.

Actually Turkey is one country who I've spectacularly misjudged throughout this. I just couldn't believe they'd want an expansionist terror state on their doorstep

The other point I'd make, is that the way those tankers were lined up (looked like Hickam field in Pearl Harbour) would indicate they didn't expect to be attacked either

There is another diplomatic possibility that occurs to me regarding our own emerging reflex policy of can we come out play too please? What if the Russians say no?, we don't trust you, you've demonstrated previously that you play with a double hand, you've consistantly been unhelpful over Syria, Ukraine, and pushing for EU sanctions (which are still in place incidentally - I would think the French will quietly set about getting these lifted in the next few months), and we don't actually need you? Cameron could be walking right into his own little Suez.

The French have a quite understandable blood lust and are seemingly working well alongside the Russians. Between them they're probably fielding in the region of 300-350 strike aircraft now I'd have thought? The French won't want to swap Russia for Britain will they? I wouldn't rely on the American's jeopardising the whole operation just so Cameron can join in. The British could easily find themselves being told to keep out the way and not disrupt anything. You would like to think that Britain had cleared up whether or not they're going to be welcomed into a coalition first, but given how this is being formulated on the hoof, I wouldn't be 100% that they have
 
Last edited:
All kicking off in Mali, 170 hostages being held by up to 10 gunmen who are reputedly Islamic extremists and who are reputedly asking the hostages if they can recite the Koran. Three dead reported at present.
 
Warbler said:
The other point I'd make, is that the way those tankers were lined up (looked like Hickam field in Pearl Harbour) would indicate they didn't expect to be attacked either
Click to expand...
Absolutely, yes!
One can only deduce that there was a confidence borne of assurance that their hundreds of tankers and highly visible/vulnerable refining plants would be left unharmed. There should be serious questions asked about this; about the so-called war on ISIS waged by the USA and and the American bombing campaign. We've been stitched up by Yank disinformation, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
this will be the same country thats been calling Russia for not actuall targetting Isis..you couldn't make it up..i'll wager nothing is said on the news about it..but had it been the other way round the US would use those pictures to back up their asseryions that Russia aren't targetting them. ..would have been all over the news.

questions need to be asked and answered just how serious the Americans are about actually defeating Isis
 
Is it the case that 'The West' are ultimately a-para about GW2, and that the formation of a non-NATO 'coalition', is what has been needed that take the ISIS threat seriously?
 
Yes....that, Ice......I think my original intent was "ultra-para" but I've moved from Heineken to Rioja since the cab journey, and I honestly can't recall.

I should really avoid posting on a Friday night as, even in middle-age, I'm somewhat of a binge-drinker.
 
EC1 said:
its a fair number if in context..its not fair to infer in your headline that 27% of the whole population thinks like that considering the number of people you are trying to represent..its very assumptive...and looks like a stirring up issue intent on causing more problems than we already have

i agree its not good at 27%...but i wouldn't hang my hat on it that is for sure
Click to expand...

Warbler added:

That 11% agree with the murdering is the more significant finding, which is broadly similar to the 10% of Saudi Arabian's surveyed who agree with ISIL (the biggest percentage by country)

This is a survey of British Muslims, right?

I'm alert to the fact that there's lies, damned lies and polling organizations; however on the assumption it's true, whether it's the 11% who agree with the murdering, the 27% who side with ISIL or percentages and attitudes 'twixt the two I for one find them staggeringly and dangerously high. Forget Islam, forget religious belief of any sort: how anyone who claims to be civilized or has an ounce of humanity can express sympathy or empathy with this barbaric (we're running out of suitable adjectives aren't we) force and its methods is beyond me. Had the percentages been 0.1% and 0.27% I'd have shrugged it off as the expected given that is probably somewhere in the region of the percentage of clinically diagnosed psychopaths in the general population

"not good" EC, blimey, it's terrifying
 
Last edited:
I'd read the question posed to them closer Drone

Some 27 per cent of British Muslims said they have "some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks" on the Paris magazine, according to polling by ComRes for the BBC.

they are saying that they can see the motivation..ie..we don't have much of a sense of humour about our religion so can see why it has fuelled some extremists do what they do.

that is a little different from what the press have got over with this ..they are saying that 27% of muslims agree you should kill people who mock our religion.

Many people do not like their religion mocked...many people could see it might motivate someone not to like it..but seeing that annoyance is not the same as saying..yes lets kill someone who mocks our religion.

The whole poll/media article is imo put out to cause the type of division that Isis want....its irresponsible imo.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I'd hadn't realised that you'd taken to using the Royal "we".

Perhaps if you'll permit therefore your Highness, to submit the following explanation as a plea for clemency

It was always my belief that you could only misquote someone in writing, if you placed the quote in question, in quotation marks, and it subsequently proved to be incorrect. Luckily I suspect that "the mug readers of this forum" as you delicately refer to them, (note the quotation marks) know this. So no I have most certainly not misquoted him (David Cameron)

If I elect instead to take the gist of what he said, then that is called paraphrasing and is widely used in both the written and spoken language. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out to some people that you're paraphrasing, but you'll occasionally be accused of patronising them if you do. In this case I'd choose to encourage the reader to draw their own conclusions regarding whether "make any difference" (as in, things won't change) is a significant corruption of "not transform" - in the sense that transform usually means change
Click to expand...

i have never read so many words given over to complete rubbish
 
EC1 said:
I'd read the question posed to them closer Drone

Some 27 per cent of British Muslims said they have "some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks" on the Paris magazine, according to polling by ComRes for the BBC.

they are saying that they can see the motivation..ie..we don't have much of a sense of humour about our religion so can see why it has fuelled some extremists do what they do.

that is a little different from what the press have got over with this ..they are saying that 27% of muslims agree you should kill people who mock our religion.

Many people do not like their religion mocked...many people could see it might motivate someone not to like it..but seeing that annoyance is not the same as saying..yes lets kill someone who mocks our religion.

The whole poll/media article is imo put out to cause the type of division that Isis want....its irresponsible imo.
Click to expand...

I would doubt very much whether 27%!of Christians would have "some sympathy" for a gunman who shot dead the monty Python team for life of brian

are we supposed to ignore the fact that 500000 muslims in this country have "some sympathy" for restricting free speech by murder?

the Division is being created by who exactly?

i think the idea that you can't have polls in case they tell the truth and want to run around with hands over ears pretending it's all not true is laughable
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
I would doubt very much whether 27%!of Christians would have "some sympathy" for a gunman who shot dead the monty Python team for life of brian
Click to expand...

you have difficulty reading Clive though it appears..they haven't said they have sympathy for the murders.

this is the problem wihn the media sponnfed people misinformation. its clear in the wording what the question was.

My concern isn't that they agreed with murdering people...they didn't if you read it without wanting it to say what you want....its that they can't laugh at their own religion..which to me is the whole message from that poll...they agreed they could see the motivation..ie..you mocked my religion ..i don't like that being done..but others with extemist views will not..just not like it.

its a very devisive poll..a trick of sorts for the gullible islamaphobist to grab hold of.

the more i read your posts Clive..the more you look a real worry to me...can't you read properly?
 
Last edited:
Rubbish

sympathy is endorsements. Simple as that

and here comes the old leftie shout down islamaphobe drivel. Maybe it should be emphasised that 73% totally disagreed witn the attacks but frankly most people can so the sums. Why shouldn't we know anyway?
 
they weren't asked if they agreed with the attacks ..they haven't given sympathy...thats the whole point ffs

and you call me thick

you really cannot see it can you?

read the question the poll asked..very closely
 
Last edited:
If someone asked me whether I had sympathy for the motives for murdering someone who had a different view then I would be endorsing. Differ if you like but it's across a line as far as I'm concerned

leave it at that
 
Last edited:
Islam is the ultimate quadrophrenic.

If you are of a pacifist persuasion, you will pay alms, lend/borrow at the same rate, and lead a life of pious goodness,.

Unfortunately, slam also avails itself to an altogether different interpretation. Those of an ISIS/Militant persuasion convince themselves that it's cool to kill Shia or Infidels of any sort (with the exception of Christians, who you should merely tax or enslave at your whim) based on texts which are undeniably legitimate, if you take a fundamentalist view of the Phrophet's alleged words. §

I don't expect non-radical Muslims to apologise for the actions of their co-religionists.........because they are clearly different versions of homo sapiens...........but it would be infinitely more honest if they acknowledged the dichotomy of Islam's teaching, and bore witness to the fact that this contributes to terror being spread in the name of their otherwise 'peaceful religion'.

Unfortunately, there is a problem.

Islam is like 14th Century Christianity, in that any questioning of its concepts is considered heresy. That means we probably have to wait 500 years before any kind of Reformation is possible. In the current climate, the worry is this: will Mankind live long enough to see it through?
 
clivex said:
sympathy is endorsements. Simple as that
Click to expand...

No it's not, and I'll give you a pertinent example

In the next few weeks David Cameron is going to try and launch a bombing campaign in Syria. I might have sympathy for his aspirations, but I don't endorse it because I think in the current climate it would be tactically foolish.

People can always have sympathy for a cause, but never make that final transition into endorsing the pursuit of violence to achieve it. We've seen it time and time again in things like nationalist causes and independence movements. It's how you get factions that broadly come from the same side of an argument but differ over tactics
 
Back
Top